Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 118   Go Down

Author Topic: Re: Recent Professional Works 2  (Read 530101 times)

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #420 on: May 28, 2013, 06:30:37 PM »

p30+/Contax

Shot with HMI's, Winow Light and some cutters.



Red (the medium format of the digital motion world)

Shot at a trillion ISO with one small hand held led.

BC

Coot,

Watching the below sepia images, I have a question regarding Red if you see this post.

As everything is built on metadatas and therefore non-destructive, my doubt remains on the isos.

Let's take this scenario shoot on Red: if one decide to shoot pushing the isos to extreme levels on purpose (and not because it lacks light)
for ex to get a 16mm grain, and after that you give-up with the idea and want to revert to a clean image to do something completly different,
are the isos also non-destructive?
So for ex, can you take those high-isos images on RCX and going back to 800 the typical high-isos grain would disappear?
I ask this question because never had very high isos Red footage on edit.
 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 06:43:09 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #421 on: May 28, 2013, 07:04:15 PM »

Totally drives me nuts, but it's a function of perspective.  If you made a mechanical drawing of the same composition from the camera position (to accurate scale) the circles would render with the same distortion.  Sometimes I do correct for this by rotating the camera until the round object is centered in the lens and then shifting the back to retain the same composition...  I did this just yesterday, but it's impossible when composing a 1 point perspective that is square to the architecture.

Actually the linear elements in the shot show the same degree of "distortion".  We just don't perceive it as much as we do with circles.

CB
may I ask ... why don't you just retouch it?
All your images are so absolutely wonderful minimalistic and straight... so why let the lens determine the final image?
Logged

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #422 on: May 28, 2013, 08:40:22 PM »

Not so much, Fred.  The ISO is totally metadata, however... if you expose for 3200 in the field and lower the ISO to 800 in RC-X, you will def be 2 stops underexposed. I prefer to shoot a clean ISO 800 and add grain in post if I want it.

I like CineGrain for this, which are actually film scans at 4k and under.

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #423 on: May 28, 2013, 08:45:14 PM »

may I ask ... why don't you just retouch it?
All your images are so absolutely wonderful minimalistic and straight... so why let the lens determine the final image?

Thomas, coming from film, we've always been accustomed to accepting the distortion.  It would be a hell of a retouch!  First you'd have to isolate the circular item.  Then you'd have to reshape it.  Then you'd have to rebuild the background where the reshaped item no longer overlaps.  Finally, you'd have to readjust other items, the chairs around the table for example, if their relationship is no longer appropriate.  That would require more outlining and background rebuilding.  All in all, it's not the sort of retouching that most of my clients would bother with given the cost.

Also... the more I think about it...  If you made a drawing of the same image, and rendered the objects more circular, it would feel like a mistake.  The distortion is actually correct for the given perspective.  It's actually about the physical realty of the view, not any function of lenses.  As an example, consider a table top front to back.  If you wanted to draw it in perspective, would you draw a circle or an oval?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 08:56:26 PM by Chris Barrett »
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1555
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #424 on: May 28, 2013, 09:11:42 PM »

may I ask ... why don't you just retouch it?
All your images are so absolutely wonderful minimalistic and straight... so why let the lens determine the final image?

It is such a standard distortion in AP going back 75+ years that our clients accept it as a fact of life with WA views.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM
LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #425 on: May 28, 2013, 09:20:59 PM »

Here is a picture of a lunchroom.  Straight out of camera and unretouched.  No distortions, tho ;)

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1555
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #426 on: May 28, 2013, 09:23:43 PM »

I LOVE the abstractness of this, but unfortunately only some of my more sophisticated clients would like it though.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM
LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

ACH DIGITAL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 605
    • http://www.achdigital.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #427 on: May 28, 2013, 09:34:56 PM »

There should be a LIKE button on LuLa.
Logged
Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #428 on: May 28, 2013, 09:37:45 PM »

Here is a picture of a lunchroom.  Straight out of camera and unretouched.  No distortions, tho ;)


Cool shot, however I can not really figure out what is going on with the design.  Is that the intention. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #429 on: May 28, 2013, 09:40:01 PM »

Hah!  We do actually have an overall shot of the lunchroom.  I rarely get to make shots like this, but the marketing person from the firm said that he will actually use this a lot!

;)

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #430 on: May 28, 2013, 09:40:44 PM »

Going back to distortion, I shot this last week for a friend of mine who is an interior architect.  Yes, the distortion does bother me a little, but the 2 point version just ... does't feel ... right.  Like why shoot a 2 point when a one point is possible?  BTW, I was not too keen on the owls, but, you know.   ;)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 09:43:50 PM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #431 on: May 28, 2013, 09:41:39 PM »

Hah!  We do actually have an overall shot of the lunchroom.  I rarely get to make shots like this, but the marketing person from the firm said that he will actually use this a lot!

;)
That is what I thought.  If not, I was hoping you could post the plans so I could figure out what the space looked like. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1555
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #432 on: May 28, 2013, 09:58:00 PM »

Hah!  We do actually have an overall shot of the lunchroom.  I rarely get to make shots like this, but the marketing person from the firm said that he will actually use this a lot!

;)

Yeehaaa!
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM
LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1555
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #433 on: May 28, 2013, 09:59:06 PM »

There should be a LIKE button on LuLa.

ditto-sometimes I'm just too lazy or busy to write something.......
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM
LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1310
  • guest
    • working
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #434 on: May 28, 2013, 11:01:59 PM »

Coot,

Watching the below sepia images, I have a question regarding Red if you see this post.

As everything is built on metadatas and therefore non-destructive, my doubt remains on the isos.

Let's take this scenario shoot on Red: if one decide to shoot pushing the isos to extreme levels on purpose (and not because it lacks light)
for ex to get a 16mm grain, and after that you give-up with the idea and want to revert to a clean image to do something completly different,
are the isos also non-destructive?
So for ex, can you take those high-isos images on RCX and going back to 800 the typical high-isos grain would disappear?
I ask this question because never had very high isos Red footage on edit.
 

Uh, well . . . gosh Fred I wish I knew.

Really, I'm sure someone from RED knows more about this than me.

The thing I've noticed with digital noise in all cameras, still and motion, the more light you have, regardless of iso, the less noise you have.

Shoot a Phase back at 800 ISO with a lot of studio flash and the noise is pretty minimal.  Shoot it with very little available light and the shadow noise can be fairly severe.

Same with the RED.

Now these images were shot with a small light panel, either handheld or mounted on a stand.  

All I did was go into the R1, move stuff around until I liked it and shot it.

Crazy right?

Anyway, once in Cine-x, there is 4 ways to make a scene brighter.  Exposure slider, ISO, Flut (which stands for something like Floating point) and obviously brightness.

Each one looks different, so in post I did a combination of all, including contrast to get the look I wanted, then made a still, then went to photoshop to match and finish out.

But, to answer your question, if I dropped the iso down to 800, and moved the exposure way up to compensate the noise was still there, but it depended on the original exposure and voume of light more than anything.

When I shot this I also tried a few images with more light and less iso and obviously less noise.  Then I tried less light, opened up the Fstop to match and though the noise should be equal I saw more noise.

In post processing I also thought it would be better to kill the denoise filter and put it in later in photoshop, but that made the blacks clump.  You really can't see the clumping in a motion image, but a still it's very evident.

So the best was was to shoot it the way I liked, look at it in the computer, make some adjustments, shoot it and then process it out with no noise killer and just move a combination of iso and exposure where I had the base image I wanted.

Does that make sense?

I don't know, but it did what I wanted.

Though the real answer is, if time permits and you know the look you want, test it, test it, test it and then shoot it.

I really only had time to shoot it, look at it, guess at the adjustment and shoot it.

BC

BTW Chris, loved that image, but it would have been great with a half eaten sandwich.  You know, human it up man.


« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 11:03:59 PM by bcooter »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11185
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #435 on: May 28, 2013, 11:47:47 PM »

Here is a picture of a lunchroom.  Straight out of camera and unretouched.  No distortions, tho ;)


LIKE!   :D

Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Scott Hargis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
    • Scott Hargis Photo
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #436 on: May 29, 2013, 12:57:22 AM »

Here is a picture of a lunchroom.  Straight out of camera and unretouched.  No distortions, tho ;)


[/quote

LIKE.

I have clients who would go ape-shit for this. And others who would say, "Whaaa....?"  I prefer the former.

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1085
    • on YouTube
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #437 on: May 29, 2013, 05:01:53 AM »


But, to answer your question, if I dropped the iso down to 800, and moved the exposure way up to compensate the noise was still there, but it depended on the original exposure and voume of light more than anything.



Thanks Coot. You answered my question.
It's the available light that makes the noise
And not that much the isos.
As you point, high isos under control
Light produces little noise.
But you pointed on what was my doubt
On Red, reverting to 800 and compensate
In rcx, the noise still is there, and it makes
Sense.
Can't test by myself because I don't
Own a red camera. All footage I have in editing
Or samples downloaded are 800 isos and clean file.
Impossible to do the experiment I wanted.
So, if it's shooted in such a way that the noise
Appears, metadatas Or not, it won't be possible
To eliminate in rcx because it's not a metadata
Task any longuer but a physic of photons-sensors.
It's important because if we can de-do, redo any looks,
Isos + available light leave a definitive print.

Practicaly, my question was asked with the idea in mind
Of adding grain artificialy in post (wich imo never end
To look organic) Or trying to get the look in camera.
But trying to get the look in camera has it's pros and cons.
Sometimes we shoot something and it
Worked. Then, we want to do the same a month later
And it does not any longuer. We May have forgotten
Steps if it was an experiment, (note everything when it's
Hot !... ). Or light conditions have changed etc...

Cheers.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 05:52:43 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

ACH DIGITAL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 605
    • http://www.achdigital.com
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #438 on: May 29, 2013, 03:44:04 PM »

Another one from the Home and Kitchen shots.

This time we had 2 additional raw lights behind the screens, coming from 11 o'clock and 2 o'clock.

Logged
Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com

JerryReed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
  • [email protected]
    • http://jerryreed.net
Re: Recent Professional Works 2
« Reply #439 on: May 29, 2013, 03:57:52 PM »

Joe,

the gray floor material was that wood, tile or something else.  I like it that is why I am asking.

Jerry Reed

http://www.jerryreed.net
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 118   Go Up